EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 12, 1998
• 1532
[Translation]
The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Colleagues, welcome to our second meeting today. this afternoon, we are very honoured to have Mr. Brian Chambers with us, as well as a number of other officials.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Wallace (Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services, Veterans Affairs Canada): Dennis Wallace.
The Chairman: Yes.
I believe both of you, Mr. Chambers and Mr. Wallace, have presentations to make. What we usually do is have you both make your presentations and then we go to a question period. If that's okay, you may start whenever you are ready, sir.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to introduce my team who are here with me this afternoon. I have Brigadier-General Pierre Boutet, who is on assignment with Veterans Affairs from the Department of National Defence—I will speak a little further about that momentarily; Mr. Darra Mogan, who is our director general of health care at Veterans Affairs; and Mr. Bernard Butler, who is the acting director general of benefits. If there should be detailed questions they will assist me.
[Translation]
I intend to make my presentation in English and French. If there are any questions in French, I can answer them.
[English]
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is both a pleasure and an honour for me to be here today to report on the joint work of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence and our collaborative efforts to strengthen communication and cooperation.
First, I would like to reiterate the sentiments of General Baril when he stated before you that the cooperation between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs has reached new heights. A little later, I will describe the numerous activities and initiatives our two departments have undertaken. I would also like to take the opportunity to tell you more about Veterans Affairs Canada's services and benefits and our client-centred service approach.
Interspersed throughout my remarks I will address issues and recommendations raised in the McLellan report. Overall, our joint commitment is to provide seamless, timely and responsive services to Canadian Forces members while they are serving, and in their transition to civilian life.
[Translation]
Veterans Affairs Canada's mandate is to meet the needs of Canadians who serve their country during war and peace and to honour those who gave their lives. Veterans Affairs Canada fulfils its mandate by providing the best possible service to all our clients.
• 1535
In this vein, the Department is improving co-ordination
with the Department of National Defence, supporting Canadian Forces
personnel during the transition from the Canadian Forces to
civilian life and working with veterans' groups and other
stakeholders to accomplish these goals.
[English]
I can unequivocally say that Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to providing the best possible service to serving and former members of the Canadian Forces who suffer from service-related disabilities through the provision of disability pensions, health care services, and benefits, including counselling. This service is of greatest support to Canadian Forces personnel during the transition from the Canadian Forces to civilian life.
Our department has been very active on the disability pension front. Allow me to give you a brief history of what Veterans Affairs Canada has been doing with respect to disability pension streamlining.
Legislative changes were put in place in September 1995 as part of the department's commitment to reducing the disability pension application process. At that time, the department assumed responsibility for processing first applications.
Two years from that date, on September 15, 1997, the time required to process a first application was cut from 18 months to 5.7 months, and the entire process, which includes the first application, review and appeal, was reduced from 36 months to 11.5 months. Getting it right the first time is the philosophy the department has adopted through pension streamlining.
Pension applications by both veterans and current and former members of the Canadian Forces continue to increase. In 1997-98 the department received 14,781 applications. Of particular interest to Veterans Affairs Canada is the percentage of these coming from current or former members of the Canadian Forces.
Nationally, 43% of first applications received in 1997-98 were submitted by current or former Canadian Force members, and in some district offices the percentage was much higher. For example, they accounted for 78% of first applications in Quebec; 65.5% in Kingston; 64% in Halifax; 61.7% in Ottawa; and 56.1% in Edmonton.
Pension entitlement is the main gateway for eligibility to Veterans Affairs Canada health benefits for Canadian Force members. Most health benefits provided to Canadian Force members under Veterans Affairs Canada's health care programs must be related to their pension conditions. Treatment benefits include such things as prescription drugs, special equipment, oxygen, vision and audio care, dental, prosthetics, and aids to daily living, among others.
[Translation]
You are no doubt aware of our Veterans Independence Program. VIP services enable our eligible clients to remain independent in their own homes and communities. They include home care, housekeeping, grounds maintenance, meal preparation and personal care.
Some of the emerging medical issues that our staff are dealing with are post traumatic stress disorder and various illnesses arising from Gulf War service.
[English]
With respect to post-traumatic stress disorder, a Veterans Affairs Canada working committee is preparing and issuing diagnostic criteria for PTSD; developing a medical questionnaire that will assist in establishing medical diagnosis of PTSD; assessing PTSD and developing adjudication and medical guidelines; and establishing a health care protocol for PTSD suffers.
Veterans Affairs Canada has received presentations on the subject from Lieutenant-General Dallaire and Major Lazowski, and is working closely with the Department of National Defence to smooth the transition for PTSD sufferers from the Canadian Forces, to ensure that there is no gap in care or counselling. Members of our staff have also participated in international meetings and symposiums on PTSD.
• 1540
[Translation]
Veterans Affairs staff continue to give Gulf War personnel priority in the processing of pension claims and appeals. As usual, the benefit of the doubt is always resolved in favour of the member.
Adjudication teams are monitoring, on an ongoing basis, all disability pension applications from Gulf War servicemen and women.
[English]
Adjudicators, with the help of pension officers and medical examiners, are first determining whether claims could be established for medically recognized conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder. In these and other cases, veterans are counselled, where necessary, to submit additional evidence to strengthen their claims.
Veterans Affairs Canada pays travel expenses to the Department of National Defence's post-deployment clinics, formerly known as Gulf War clinics, for those clients released from the Canadian Forces who apply for a disability pension for Gulf War illnesses, so they can obtain appropriate diagnostic testing to clarify the disability from which the client suffers.
For those Gulf War personnel already in receipt of the disability pension arising from their service in the Gulf, the clinics provide assessments that assist in planning appropriate treatments for their conditions. You can be assured that these Gulf War personnel receive the same level of consideration as veterans of any war.
I made reference in my introductory remarks to the department's client-centred service approach. Let me explain the philosophy of client-centred service in more detail.
In response to changing client needs, the department is shifting from a program-driven approach to that of a client-based approach, emphasizing more personalized care service. Adoption of the client-centred service approach will mean clients with greater needs will receive more support and contact with skilled staff within the department as well as outside agencies.
Allow me to illustrate how the spirit of this approach is already impacting on Canadian Forces clients. At CFB Petawawa, Veterans Affairs Canada has on site one day each week an area counsellor from our Ottawa district office. This facilitates face-to-face contact with Canadian Forces members and enables the area counsellor to provide information on Veterans Affairs programs and services, to monitor the progress of client applications for benefits, and to network with clients and other social workers and health professionals.
In one case this networking resulted in a PTSD client being identified by another Canadian Forces client. A subsequent home visit resulted in a number of needs being assessed, and an extensive care plan was then put in place.
In Quebec, a partnership between the Quebec district office and CFB Valcartier has resulted in a committee being formed, with representatives from Veterans Affairs Canada, the Department of National Defence, the provincial government, the Royal Canadian Legion, the health profession, and the civilian community. The purpose of the committee is to assist medically released members in their transition to civilian life.
There are plans to place a Veterans Affairs pension officer and a clerk on the base for one or two days a week. Once clearance is received, the Veterans Affairs clerk will partner with the Department of National Defence staff member to produce service documents.
In addition, efforts are under way to make copies of a disability pension applicant's military file available to Veterans Affairs should a member be deployed to a special duty area. This type of information-sharing would accelerate the pension process.
I expect that the presence of Veterans Affairs Canada will be increasingly apparent on all military bases.
The department is also conducting a review of veterans' care needs, which does include Canadian Forces, to identify and forecast the continuing needs of aging veterans and our other clients with complex needs. Preliminary findings by the review team with respect to veteran demographics, their health care status, and future needs requirements have been documented and will be further analysed. This type of evidence-based research is already proving useful for the department in the development of programs and policies to better meet the needs of all of our clients.
[Translation]
In terms of Veterans Affairs Canada/Department of National Defence co-operation, a Liaison Committee was established, composed of Directors General from both departments. A Veterans Affairs Canada/Department of National Defence Improvement Team was formed at the request of the Liaison Committee to strengthen the working relationship of the two departments by determining what services and benefits are currently available to Canadian Forces members, to search for gaps in the provision of these benefits and services and to recommend solutions.
• 1545
This improvement team reported its findings and suggested
resolutions in a final report released in the fall of 1997.
[English]
Let me detail some of the activities that illustrate our efforts in the areas of education, training, and partnering.
Veterans Affairs Canada made presentations at the base surgeons' conference and at medical officer training courses.
Veterans Affairs Canada has prepared presentations that highlight our services and benefits, and will give them at bases during SCAN—second career—seminars, at pre-deployment briefings, and to new recruits.
A Veterans Affairs Canada-Department of National Defence cross-training kit is being developed for use by our regional and district offices as well as local and regional Canadian Forces bases to increase awareness of each department's policies and services.
Both Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence are actively involved in solving documentation issues on a case-by-case basis. Veterans Affairs Canada can be more responsive to client needs, as procedures are in place to adjudicate quickly on pension eligibility following serious injury or death arising from Canadian Forces service. The Department of National Defence identifies cases and provides Veterans Affairs Canada the information necessary to adjudicate.
Our departments have put in place a high-level exchange program, General Boutet being an example, to promote awareness of each department's programs and to make recommendations on how to improve services.
With all the positive work that is being done, I would like to acknowledge that there are still issues that need to be addressed. One such issue concerns peacekeepers and their eligibility for benefits and services. You have already heard from our minister on this issue and from General Baril, who spoke of the legal definitions of the terms “veteran” and “special duty area” and of how the existing legislation does not include Canadian Forces personnel.
I would like the committee to know the department is sensitive to this issue, and we will continue to look into this area.
[Translation]
Before concluding, I would like to briefly describe some other initiatives that we are involved in with Department of National Defence. One successful initiative is the Health Care Co-ordination Initiative which has Veterans Affairs Canada, Department of National Defence and other federal departments co-ordinating efforts in the cost effective provision of health care benefits and services.
The collaborative approach has already improved, and is expected to continue to improve the collective purchasing power of departments and agencies which provide health services.
[English]
Our department has a great deal of experience in managing a successful treatment benefits program for our clients, and we have made an offer to the Department of National Defence to administer their drug program and other health benefits. We anticipate this could result in better, streamlined service delivery processes for health benefits for Canadian Forces members. A meeting is scheduled to take place later this month to further discuss and explore options in this regard.
In the area of commemoration, our two departments enjoy a long and excellent working relationship, and we are in the process of formalizing a partnership in this area.
What now are our next steps? We will continue to strengthen the relationship between the two departments, building upon the work already done as we strive towards the resolution of outstanding issues and improved processes. The joint study looking into gaps in benefits and services in transition to civilian life will proceed so that clients may receive benefits they need within the criteria of our current programs.
Our departments will promote the coordinated case management approach through ongoing exchange of information. Ongoing efforts will be made to raise awareness of Canadian Forces needs throughout Veterans Affairs Canada and to train and educate Veterans Affairs Canada and Department of National Defence staff on these needs.
In addition, we will be participating in phases two and three of the McLellan report. Issues that were raised during the review will need to be validated. For this reason, the report should not be considered a final report, but rather a preliminary one designed to provide the means for further review and refinement.
• 1550
Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to validate these
issues and suggest ways to resolve them. It is
expected this process will be completed by August 1998.
The department, in cooperation with the Department of
National Defence, will develop an action plan on how to
implement the final recommendations and will work
toward having a finalized version by November 1998.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my formal remarks. I look forward to any comments you may have with respect to the ongoing work between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence. Thank you once again for this opportunity to appear before you to update you on the activities under way between our two departments.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.
We'll go right away with Mr. Chambers, and then we can go to question period after.
Mr. Brian Chambers (Chairman, Veterans Review and Appeal Board): Good afternoon,
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman and committee members.
[English]
I'm delighted to be with you today to outline the role of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board in serving the members of the Canadian Forces of Canada.
[Translation]
Before I begin, allow me to introduce Ms. Leslie MacLean, the Board's executive director.
[English]
As you may know, the role of the tribunal I am pleased to lead as chair is outlined clearly by statute, namely the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act. Our mandate is full and exclusive jurisdiction to hear, determine, and deal with all applications for review and all appeals that may be made to the board under the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and several other acts that are assigned to us, such as the RCMP Superannuation Act. All matters related to those applications and appeals are authorized under the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.
Currently we're comprised of 29 members of the board and we have a staff of 75 working to serve veterans and former service people, including members of the regular force from across Canada. We are proud to report that we have succeeded in meeting the challenge of considerably reducing both backlogs and processing times for review and appeal hearings. The review hearings, for those who are new to the committee, would be our first level of appeal. They're conducted at about 48 different geographical locations throughout Canada. The final level of appeal is coordinated through Charlottetown and the hearings are convened in Charlottetown.
When the board was formed in September 1995 the average time for all steps in a favourable hearing, from the application to the final sending out of a cheque, was 12 months at the first level, or what we call the review level, and 8 to 10 months at the appeal level. So when we took over those were the two timelines we were looking at. By the end of the two-year target—that is, in September 1997—with the help and collaboration of all the contributors in the process, we had reduced those times at the first level from 12 months down to 3.6 months, and at the appeal level from 8 to 10 months down to 3.5 months. We're very proud of those achievements. As you can well respect, that's a considerable savings in terms of time, and certainly we don't have to trade on the patience of our clients any further.
Although we are delighted with this progress in significantly improving service to our clients, we remain committed to exploring opportunities to enhance our service quality. By that we mean that we have enacted a very rigorous system of internal quality service agreements with our staff and with our participants to ensure that we meet very rigorous time restraints at each stage of the appeal process.
In relation more specifically to the hearings of your committee today, I would note that the board's role lies in adjudicating under the current Pension Act, which defines the grounds for awarding a pension entitlement. Thus, members of the regular force will be covered under the provisions of what is known as subsection 21(2) for their peacetime service, where the test for awarding pension is determining how service has caused or aggravated the disability. In that sense, it's comparable to workers' compensation legislation.
• 1555
The members who provide service in a special duty area
are covered by a much more expanded test, known in our
system as the insurance clause, which means it only has
to be attributable or relate to that period of service.
In other words, it only has to occur during that
timeframe.
There doesn't doesn't have to be a cause-and-effect
relationship demonstrated for special duty area
service. For special duty area service, as you know,
those periods of service are outlined by regulation
that is passed from time to time, depending on new
areas of service the Canadian Forces enter into.
This means that any disability occurring during
special duty area service is eligible for pension
award, and eligible immediately.
Our board's mandate in serving regular force clients is quite clear and defined by legislation: to hear and decide in those instances in which the client is not satisfied with the decision from the departmental level. Of course we have also been pleased to participate in some of the initiatives led by the Department of Veterans Affairs earlier described by my colleague Mr. Wallace. We'll continue, as appropriate, to participate in those particular initiatives.
This concludes my brief remarks. I would welcome your comments or questions with regard to the board's mandate and method of operation. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
We will now go on to questions.
Ms. Venne.
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): First of all, I would like to ask you how many applications for disability benefits are rejected by Veterans Affairs Canada and then upheld by you. Does this happen frequently? In the majority of cases? I'm not asking you for specific figures, but could you give me a percentage?
[English]
Mr. Dennis Wallace: It would depend. In excess of half of the claims submitted normally at first level are approved for a pension. That may not mean, though, that the applicant is satisfied with the award that is provided. Therefore that applicant may choose to appeal for a higher level. My point is that it is a question with several elements to it. I think it is fair to say that in excess of half of the pensions considered are in fact approved at first level. But they in fact may be appealed subsequently because the applicant, as I mentioned, seeks a higher award.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: So, that's more than half of the cases. Is that right?
Mr. Brian Chambers: Pardon me, Madam...
Ms. Pierrette Venne: So you are saying that in more than half of the cases that come to you, the review leads to the decision being overturned and a pension is provided.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: I'm talking about the first level. I'm responsible for the first level, but there are others.
[English]
Perhaps, Mr. Butler, just to be sure that I am accurate on that point....
Mr. Bernard Butler (Acting Director General of Benefits, Veterans Affairs Canada): Certainly.
Under the Pension Act there are two issues we deal with when an applicant makes a claim for pension. The first is an application relating to the issue of eligibility. In other words, is the claim condition service-connected? Under the act, degrees of service connection can be found. In other words, if it's wholly related to service, for instance, the claimed disability would be pensioned fully. Under the legislation, five-fifths is the way it's broken down. If it were a pre-enlistment condition, but aggravated as a function of military service, then a partial entitlement award might be made. In other words, a portion of the disability might be considered service-connected and pensionable. As an example, perhaps one-fifth or two-fifths or three-fifths or four-fifths of the disability might be considered service-connected.
Once that eligibility issue is addressed, we then have to determine the degree or extent of disability and fix an assessment for the condition. Pension is paid according to that assessment.
All of this brings us to the point that you could have an applicant receiving a partially favourable award at the first level with an assessment of say 10%, and we would consider that a favourable adjudication. However, the client may not be happy with that adjudication.
• 1600
The client may then wish to go to the
Veterans Review and Appeal Board and seek an increase
in either the degree of entitlement or in the
assessment of the disability. That's why the notion of
a favourable award is a very complex one in the
process.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, of course.
[English]
Mr. Brian Chambers: There are two other factors, if I could mention them briefly, in terms of cases that appear before the board.
Oftentimes when someone makes a first application, they may have four conditions. Let's say the person has a shoulder problem, a knee problem, a stomach problem and whatever. He or she may get a favourable ruling on one of those conditions at first level. That would count as a favourable decision. But obviously he or she didn't get a favourable decision on the other three conditions and would continue to pursue those with us. So you can see how those figures would vary. They're favourable at one level but that's still not going to stop the appeal process from moving ahead.
Another point that I think is important to remember in terms of the distinction is that we're not an appeal like a court system where you're confined to the facts as you heard them at the first level and you only appeal on the issue of a law, for example, or of interpretation.
At our levels, you can have a completely new hearing, including completely new evidence. We may hear evidence—and in fact, we very often do—that they never heard at the first level because their decision pointed out some deficiency or some medical shortcoming or whatever. That's brought in before us and then we can address it. Very often the fact there's a variance is not an indication that the department hasn't done a very systematic job with what it's had at that level.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would also like to talk to you about military staff who have been injured in a special duty area, during a peacekeeping operation overseas, for example. These people will receive more benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs than people who are injured in Canada or overseas in an area that has not been declared a special duty area. This issue was raised on a number of occasions, and veterans are not very pleased with the distinction that is made and they are asking for both cases to be dealt with in the same way. What do you think? Do you think that the pension benefits should be the same, no matter where the person was injured? Do you agree with that?
[English]
Mr. Dennis Wallace: That is one of the areas of consideration where we will be working in the next phases with the Department of National Defence in the follow-up to the McLellan report that I mentioned.
Ultimately it would be a decision for the government, but we do recognize that those who serve in special duty areas do receive somewhat more consideration, not so much for pension but for other benefits stemming from the pensionable condition. And for those serving in Canada that is a consideration which has been raised by the Department of National Defence and which we will be pursuing over the course of the next few months.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Should I conclude that you would be in favour of both cases being treated the same way?
[English]
Mr. Dennis Wallace: I am not able to say what the outcome of our work will be, but we will be taking that into consideration. It is an area of concern.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: You don't want to reveal anything for the time being, unless I'm mistaken.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: That's not possible for the time being.
Ms. Pierrette Venne: I have another question about the assistance that your Board offers, particularly about the length and complexity of the process. Apparently, the slowness and complexity becomes exasperating for members of the Forces and their families. They told us that it's frustrating, because they have to file applications when they are sick, and they aren't used to dealing with a Board. These people really are at a loss when they have to deal with all these problems.
What could be done to improve the situation? For example, how could we reduce the amount of paperwork in some cases? Is that possible?
• 1605
[English]
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Perhaps Mr. Chambers and I could share this response, and Bernard may have some comment as well.
In fact during my comments I made reference to our work with the Department of National Defence. That's why, for example, at some of the military bases we hope to expand that. We would have Department of Veterans Affairs personnel there at least one day or more per week. The advice we're able to provide on the base often speeds up the pension process.
Another item that I mentioned is that we have briefed the medical personnel of National Defence. This was in the summer of 1997. It was to help them in the completion of their medical records, which would also help us in doing the assessments for pension purposes.
Additionally, we have looked toward, in some cases—the Gulf War would be one example—an accelerated process where if the problems are acute, we will move more quickly, but certainly, our efforts are very much focused on the area of improving service and the provision of records. The accuracy of the medical assessments and the quality of the counselling on first contact are factors, I think, that are very important.
I'll ask Mr. Butler if there's anything he might add.
Mr. Bernard Butler: I think we certainly take much from the McLellan report and the observations therein regarding a proactive approach to assisting particularly CF members.
Under the Pension Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs does provide pension officers in each of our district offices whose statutory mandate is in fact to counsel and assist these very clients in the completion of their claims and in obtaining medical information and whatever other information is required and then submitting that for adjudication. We certainly see that there's room evidently for some improvement given the observations that have been made by some of our members along the lines of us reaching out perhaps a bit more and helping those individuals.
The other side is one that was touched on by Mr. Wallace. That's the issue of communication with DND. Certainly there are many improvements that we're working on with respect to the issue of the acquisition of medical service records, the timely obtaining of information from physicians, and so on, to help complete the application package and have it submitted for adjudication. So we're certainly mindful of the concerns and we're certainly working hard on that to improve it for this particular client group.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Proud.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen, to our committee this afternoon. I haven't really got very much to add to the questions that Madame Venne put to you.
All I want to say is that although I haven't been across to all the bases with the committee, I know that the problems I get in my office—I know other members have had presentations made to them from serving members and those who are retired and those who were hurt—are about the process of getting from one to the other.
In your presentation, Mr. Wallace, you said the service was a great support to the Canadian Forces personnel during the transition period. You also say that you expect that the presence of Veterans Affairs Canada will be increasingly apparent at military bases. I think that's the area that—this is aside from the problem with the special-duty area and the men or women who served in Canada and got hurt doing work in the ice storm or on the Red River, whatever the case may be—you're going to have to be dealing with, as you say, as you go down the road.
So today, we may go on to other things. There may be other questions to you from other members relating to other veterans. But I believe in this care for the injured and this process the committee's going through now I know there were problems. They heard cases in Halifax that were some pretty good horror stories.
• 1610
I'm sure if you people get hold of these things, then
they can be remedied.
I think the big thing is you have the man with you,
the liaison between the Department of National Defence
and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is a step
in the direction these people would like to see, and I
am sure this will be resolved. There are always going
to be problems—I mean, we know that's not going to be
100% pure, but I do believe it is improving.
I know you people are working hard at it, and the Department of National Defence is working hard at it. But those are the stories—and I'm sure others around this table can tell you a lot more about it—those are the things you'll be the most active in, I'm sure, for the next number of weeks and months, to try to resolve some of these problems. One of the big issues is going to be coming from the military themselves, and that's the difference between the special duty area and the.... Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Proud.
We still have a couple of minutes left. If you will permit me, while you were speaking I jotted down a lot of the complaints we have heard across Canada. I would like you perhaps to expand on some of the things I will be mentioning to you, if it's possible. These are things we heard across Canada.
Number one: lost medical files. That came up on numerous occasions. We were in Halifax and it came out there, as well as in Gagetown. It seems to be something that's pretty widespread, from the testimony that we've heard.
The other thing: DVA does not take into consideration the medical information from DND doctors. Apparently people have to go and see the DVA doctors. We've also heard that, on numerous occasions. And who are the doctors for DVA? Are they civilians? Perhaps you could just mention to me who these people are.
Third, in your presentation, Mr. Wallace, you mentioned, “I expect that the presence of Veterans Affairs Canada will be increasingly apparent on all military bases”. I would like to know from you what this committee can do to make this happen, because I think this is extremely important.
Last, you said that you were formalizing a partnership in this area, I believe, with DND and your department.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: That's correct.
The Chairman: Could you just tell me what that partnership implies?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Okay. As to lost medical files, I don't know that I can speak for the Department of National Defence. Would you perhaps have any observations, General Boutet?
Brigadier-General Pierre Boutet (Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence): I don't have all the information. I did discuss this issue with Mr. Wallace this morning, and I do know that it is a problem internal to DND. I am not familiar enough with VAC to know if files have been lost in VAC, and I can't comment on that.
The information that I hear and that I've read has little to do with VAC, but rather involves requests from VAC to DND to provide medical documents. They don't get them because they've been lost, whether it's in transit between Bosnia and Canada or wherever when people are moved, especially from base to base across the country.
I haven't discussed that with DND, so I cannot tell you who's responsible or what's in place. It's certainly an item on my agenda, because I've had requests from people at Veterans Affairs asking me to try to facilitate the access to these documents, as there seems to be a problem somewhere with documents getting to VAC.
As you know, it's the very first step in the process. Once they receive the application, they need the medical document to do the assessment, and if the documents don't arrive, then there's a problem. So that's on my list as well—to see what it is we can do to improve that system. I cannot comment as to the number of cases of files that have been lost. I don't know. I know it has been identified as a problem.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: As to Veterans Affairs doctors, we do have doctors across Canada, and they are a combination of employees of the department and some working on contract.
We took steps this past year to, where possible, regularize, in other words make permanent employees or employees of the government, doctors who provide services to us, particularly in Ontario and some of the regions in the west.
• 1615
They are there for
the purposes of providing us an assessment. It may be
a case of reviewing a file where a doctor in the
Department of National Defence has reached an
assessment at some time. However, time may have passed.
The purposes of our assessment may be somewhat
different from the treatment of trauma, for example, that
a departmental doctor in National Defence might have
been faced with.
Bernard may be able to provide a bit more from experience.
Mr. Bernard Butler: With respect to that issue, DVA does take into consideration the information provided by DND doctors. It's very difficult to speak to any specific case, obviously. I can speak generally, however.
Given that our mandate is to deal with specific disability claims, we look for basic information from the medical service record that would accompany the member. If the individual is claiming for a condition that is clearly diagnosed and documented on the man's DND or Canadian Forces medical file, that diagnosis would be accepted for purposes of adjudication. If it's an issue of assessing the degree or extent of disability, again, if it's a still-serving or recently released member, and if there were sufficient medical information contained on the file with respect to that specific disability, we would in the normal course accept that and consider it.
A difficulty certainly can arise in any given case where there is not either sufficient diagnostic information on a given file or not sufficient information to enable our doctors or physicians to set an assessment for the condition. In this case we would then normally go either through our senior district medical officers in the field or through the individual's private physician, if he or she has been recently released, to try to get a bit more medical information to help clarify the picture.
There certainly is nothing within our policies or otherwise that would preclude the use of medical information contained on the member's Canadian Forces file, not at all. In fact the rule of thumb we work with is to endeavour to process the claim as quickly as we can, based on the information that is available. Again, the only time we would depart from that is if there were some question around the information that is given or if it is simply insufficient in the circumstances to assist us.
So that, as a general rule, is how we approach the adjudication of claims from still-serving or recently released members.
Mr. Brian Chambers: If I might, Bernard and I at one stage of our careers used to represent these particular individuals. One of the problem areas you face with peacetime soldiers is there's a significant reluctance to report injuries while still in service. The reason for this is because they feel either it's going to lead to a declassification or it's going to be problematic in terms of promotion. In some cases it may be a basis upon which they'll be released from the service. One of the problems the two systems have is they're trying to be a good soldier on the one hand and yet they may have experienced physical injuries. I'm not limiting it to physical injuries, but that's the more obvious case of injuries during service they don't want to talk about.
One of the suggestions I might put forward, which might be helpful, is that if you had a clearinghouse for this type of information, which is kept away from the DND file itself but could be used for future pension adjudication, it would be very helpful to us. In other words, they can report it to this separate clearinghouse but they define that it will not go on their DND file, their Canadian Forces file. They verify that they've had an injury or a complaint about a problem, and therefore in the future, perhaps ten years later, when they're released from service, we can then access that particular information, which is very helpful to us in adjudicating on whether or not the injury occurred at that time and what the extent of it seemed to be at that time.
As long as the reporting system exists as it does now—and I'm sure General Boutet will point this out—they're not going to report it to CF because they're going to see that as a limitation careerwise. If you can steer it that way to an independent hermetically sealed clearinghouse then that may help to resolve the dilemma the individual soldier faces on a regular basis.
• 1620
Mr. Dennis Wallace: If I might, Mr. Chairman, as to our presence on military bases, this is a relatively newer phenomenon that comes from our recognition of the fact that a large percentage of our clients, as I'd indicated, now are in fact still-serving members. More often than not our ability to be on a base is a function of the relationship we have with the base commander, and in many cases that works out very well. Good examples would be Valcartier in Quebec and Petawawa in Ontario.
I've asked my directors general across Canada to work towards establishing strong relationships with base commanders, whether it is in Halifax, in Wainwright, or in British Columbia in fact. I think it's a building of understanding between National Defence and Veterans Affairs at all levels. This is where perhaps a committee to make more aware.... If Veterans Affairs is able to be present on a base with some office space and some cooperation, both sides, from National Defence and from Veterans Affairs, we would be able to provide better service.
One other point I might add is I think we also recognize that with Canada's increasing participation in police actions, in peacekeeping activities around the world, it's very important that we brief the armed forces who are about to go abroad. So in working with National Defence around the planning of those groups going across and going overseas, there is the idea of providing peace of mind to those forces. So in their accepting, as General Dallaire has put it, the concept of unlimited liability we can give them the peace of mind of knowing that Veterans Affairs is there to provide service and help in the event there should be an injury or other problem.
So as to presence on military bases, I think the majority of it is understanding. It is a bit of a resource issue for us by virtue of the fact that this individual is outside of our offices at a military base, but we're working hard to manage that.
The last item you'd raised was formalizing partnerships. We worked together in an improvement committee over the last year with National Defence, and we intend to continue that. As recently as two weeks ago I met with General Romeo Dallaire to discuss the details of the follow-on on the McLellan report, and we will have a team re-formed between us. Veterans Affairs expects to name a senior officer to work at National Defence in their information cell very shortly; and that individual on our behalf would be helping on progressing what I describe to be the partnership. So it will be follow-on to the McLellan report.
The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to know if all the merchant navy vets are eligible for all the services you're referring to today in the same manner as the army, navy, and air force vets.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Merchant navy veterans are eligible for the same benefits as would be veterans of World War I, World War II, and Korea. We would consider them to be veterans equal and therefore eligible.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: They had given the minister a list of 40 restrictions that are in place, which the merchant navy feel do not make them equal, if you like, with the other vets. Have you had an opportunity to look at that and review those 40 restrictions?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: I believe, Mrs. Wayne, we have that work under way, and as the minister mentioned during his presentation to the standing committee on our estimates, his intention is to respond.
Bernard would perhaps like to comment, but the work is under way on those points.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: In our veterans hospital back in Saint John there was a move to take out the chef who was in place, one little man, who cooked the meals for our vets, and to fly in their meals from Ontario. We worked on this, and in fact we had a disabled vet who said he'd come in in a wheelchair and cook the meals himself if he had to, because a lot of people are allergic to MSG and other things. So we were able to keep the chef. I'm not sure, I haven't checked lately, but I know it was removed from other hospitals.
• 1625
I know, from having been in our regional hospital
myself, where they entered into this agreement, that
the food that was flown in.... When they gave it to me
the day after my operation and the doctor came in to
see me, I said to him, “Would you like to have
this?”, and he said, “Elsie, throw it in the garbage.
That's not fit for you to eat.” I said, “No, it
isn't, but I'm thinking about the vets. Mother of God,
if it's not fit for me to eat, then it's not fit for
them to eat.”
So what I'd like to know is, why would we do that to our veterans? Why can't we have a chef, for God's sake, on site in every veterans' hospital to cook them a potato and a piece of meat and an egg and make a piece of toast for them? Have you looked at it?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: We look at that frequently, because of course re-thermalized food now tends to be used in institutions right across Canada—
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: —and on every airplane on which we travel.
What we do is try our best to ensure.... If re-thermalized food is prepared properly, it is reasonably good food. In fact I think it's fair to say that Ste. Anne's Hospital, for which the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible in Montreal, is expert in dysphagic food—food for those who have difficulty swallowing. That food is actually frozen and re-thermalized in many instances, and it's well appreciated. It's the way it's prepared and the quality that goes with it.
But as to whether there's a difference between re-thermalized and freshly prepared, that is a concern.
I don't know if Mr. Mogan would like to add further. Darra is responsible for long-term care.
Mr. W.D. Mogan (Director General, Health Care, Veterans Services, Veterans Affairs Canada): Yes, it is certainly a concern.
As Mr. Wallace has said, there are several bodies of opinion about re-thermalized food. It usually comes from those people who don't have to eat it, saying, “We're quite sensitive to that.” Tests have been done to show that if presentation is well cared for with re-thermalized food, the level of satisfaction with it is considerably more than if it comes out in the way you say it came out in the regional hospital in Saint John.
There are other tests around that suggest that for people who are suffering from some form of cognitive impairment, the actual preparation of a meal close to an individual makes an awful lot of difference in their, as it were, rate of deterioration.
So because there's a body of opinion there that isn't certain at this point, before we ask for any changes, we've asked for an independent study to be done of that, and we'll look forward to the results of that.
Having said that, progress on that might not be as rapid as we would like, because it is an industry standard to serve re-thermalized food. We want to be in a good position, if we're recommending to the 76 contract facilities, one of which is in Saint John, that we make changes. We want to make sure we have a strong policy basis for doing that. But we're pretty well aware of the nature of the problem.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: My last question is for you, Mr. Chairman.
The merchant navy has applied to appear as witnesses on either May 28 or June 2. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, if this request is going to be honoured by our committee, just to hear them.
The Chairman: I've talked to the person in charge. We were thinking of having them—and I know there's a bill coming down from....
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The omnibus bill?
The Chairman: Yes, an omnibus bill. We were thinking of having them come in then, because we are pretty busy right now with Bill C-25 and with the quality of life. I don't know if we'll be able to bring them in in very short order, but I know the man has come in and we're seriously looking at it.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Before the bill comes before the House?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. Because if you'll recall, the minister stated that the bill would probably come before the House before we dissolved for the summer. If that were the case, I guess from what we're hearing, it would have to be May 28 or June 2 or near that time.
Mr. George Proud: There's a possibility it will be introduced before the House adjourns for the summer.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
• 1630
My first question is in regard to an
issue that has been
brought to my attention several times, and that's the
the duplication of information that seems to
be required when a case is passed from DND to Veterans
Affairs, and also the number of lost files.
I would like to start by asking you—and this may be more a question for DND—what kind of a system would be in place that would allow so many files to become lost in the process?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: I think, Mr. Benoit, we're in the position where we can only speak about Veterans Affairs. To the best of my knowledge, we do not lose files. I guess the best thing I could do would be to turn to Mr. Butler and ask him to speak on that point.
Mr. Bernard Butler: Perhaps, Mr. Benoit, you might clarify for me, are you referring to difficulty accessing files through the Canadian Forces on release?
Mr. Leon Benoit: It's usually the files from DND that somehow don't seem to be available to transfer to Veterans Affairs. It requires that the person who is looking for the help try to get their information.
Along with that, of course, is the requirement, in so many cases, for a person to access the files under access to information. Files just aren't made readily available.
So my question to Veterans Affairs could be, how often do you find, when someone comes to you and his transfer is taking place, the files just aren't available from DND?
Mr. Bernard Butler: I certainly couldn't give you numbers at all, Mr. Benoit, because I really would not have that information available to us. I think it's fair to say we do have cases where we have some challenges in getting sufficient information to enable us to rule on the application in a timely manner.
However, that having been said, it is an issue about which we have had a considerable number of discussions with DND, and DND is, to the best of our knowledge, working vigorously on that issue in terms of attempting to address it. I know there have been different suggestions placed before this committee over time. One, as an example, was having CF-98s prepared and filed with an information advisory cell, as an example of one way of expediting the processing of applications.
Obviously the machinery of the Canadian Forces, as with any large government department, is complex, and there are certainly many challenges evidently there. But we are working closely with them in an effort to try to address it and to resolve these kinds of issues to enable us to manage the application more speedily.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Is the issue always the case of a lost file, or is it sometimes a file that, quite frankly, DND doesn't want to release to you?
Mr. Bernard Butler: I suspect it's probably more a case where the file may not necessarily be lost, but the documents that are relevant to the given claim may not be with the file material that is available. Perhaps that's the kind of situation you've heard complaints about.
Mr. Leon Benoit: My understanding is that every document that might apply is supposed to be in that file with DND, and even if some of the information is pulled from the file from time to time, there's supposed to be a copy left in that file. Is that accurate?
Mr. Bernard Butler: Perhaps General Boutet can help us from his military background.
BGen Pierre Boutet: Yes, your statement is accurate. There should be no documents removed permanently from the file. So if a document is taken from the file, there should be a copy left there so the file is complete at all times.
But the issue you raise has been raised by the chair, and this is a problem that is in existence, because I received from VAC a request about a month ago, with a list of sort of outstanding cases going from 15 days to, I don't know, 250-some days, where they have requested documents and have not received them. In some cases, I know they have been told that it is even faster if they wait until the year the member is going to be released, because they'll find them in the archives, rather than get them.
• 1635
Why is it happening? I don't have the answers.
I know there's a problem, and we're looking into it.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you've brought up an important point. In some cases, it's probably not that the document isn't there, it's that, for some reason, it takes such a long time for the department to make them available.
BGen Pierre Boutet: You're quite right. I'm not disputing your statement on that. I saw and was made aware.... About three weeks, I was in Victoria. A former base administration officer told me that, for example, he had asked for a copy—he's been released from the forces now—of his medical file on his release. He was told—we're talking here of a base administration officer—that he had to go through access to information. They needed to send all the documents back to Ottawa.
As you know, that policy has been changed. Obviously, not everybody knows that the policy has been changed. You don't force people to go through access to information to get their medical documents.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Yet people still are forced all the time to do so.
BGen Pierre Boutet: That's right. I'm not disputing this.
I know it has been said in writing and the information has been disseminated, but obviously, it hasn't reached everyone in the system.
Mr. Leon Benoit: It must be frustrating for all of you dealing with this to be held up like that because I know it's frustrating for the people who so often desperately need the help. I think we've all heard from people who have been in that situation.
So what can be done to remedy this situation?
BGen Pierre Boutet: There's a follow-up that will be done from the McLellan report. That's a problem that has been raised with them too: delays in getting applications, as such. We'll have to look at improving that system certainly to get these documents. I just don't see why we cannot have staff available to give them the file and ask them to copy it and leave it with the individual. This is so that those who are leaving the forces can go away with their files. At least they'll have the documents in their hands.
Why can't we do this? If it's a staff problem such that we don't have enough people, I think we can solve that on a case-by-case basis. I just don't understand why.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that it's actually policy now that when someone leaves the forces, they don't have to go through the Access to Information Act. They should be able to have access to their full files now.
BGen Pierre Boutet: I don't want to mislead you on this. I know it's DND policy that you don't force people to go through access to information to get documents that they can get and should be able to get otherwise.
I have seen a memorandum—I don't have it with me—dealing with medical files that said that these should be made available. But I don't want to mislead you. If it's specific to medical documents, I'll look for that.
Mr. Leon Benoit: You're saying that it might be a policy or it might just be a directive more or less.
BGen Pierre Boutet: I thought it was a policy on access to information for members of the forces as to personal documents. It's a policy from at least two years ago, if I'm not mistaken. I didn't look into this today, but I can look for that and then provide it to you, Mr. Benoit, to see what I have on that.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd appreciate that. It doesn't happen so often and it has to be remedied somehow. It doesn't make sense for people who either have medical problems or who have left the forces voluntarily or otherwise not to have access to their files.
BGen Pierre Boutet: That's why I say I totally agree with you. I don't have a problem with this, but I don't necessarily make these policies. My recollection is that the policy is in place.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.
We now go to the five-minute rounds. Madam Venne.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: No. I had exactly the same question as Mr. Benoit did. So I don't need to ask it again.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of you gentlemen, I can't remember which one, said that there is a need to build understanding between Veterans Affairs and DND. I guess you also referenced that particular bases are better than others as far as the relationship goes.
I'm just wondering. I guess the question that strikes me is why should there be a need to build understanding? The people who are in the system right now in terms of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen who are working for us within the armed forces and are serving for us within the armed forces, expect that to exist already. From my perspective at least, they take as a given that there would be cooperation.
So why do we have to build these relationships? Why is it necessary? Why doesn't it exist already?
• 1640
Mr. Dennis Wallace: I don't know, Mr. Pratt, that I have a good answer for you on that side. About two years ago we met with representatives of the Department of National Defence, including senior members—General Dallaire is one good example—attending a meeting in Charlottetown of pensioned officers from Bernard's group, as well as representatives of veterans organizations. Mr. Inrig and other representatives of veterans organizations were present.
Probably that was about the first time we actually had presentations made by National Defence personnel on medical discoveries with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder and the like. Out of those workshops, at the end of the first day, we met to talk with General Dallaire about how we could improve service, because that is the basis of what we provide to both veterans and the Canadian Forces. From that came the improvement team that has been in place for the last two years.
With respect to military bases proper, I think it goes back to my earlier comment. It's not that there's unwillingness; it's that we haven't consciously gone out. I think we each bear responsibility there—that base commanders, directors general of Veterans Affairs and district directors should know each other, should have a good personal relationship, and should be seeking opportunities for improving services to Canadian Forces members in whatever form that would be.
It was through that kind of contact that, again, at base Petawawa and at Valcartier, improvement has been made. We are also moving now towards Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Wainwright—all of the other bases.
Mr. David Pratt: Okay. On the issue of lost medical files, in terms of DND coming back to that issue, there appears to be, at least from my perspective, a lack of accountability in the system.
If you can't tell us.... And I don't imagine that you can tell us, for instance, what percentage of cases would have had lost medical files; I presume that's impossible to provide that sort of information. It would seem to me that it would be valuable within the system to be able to mark on a particular file, “file delayed because of such and such”. If you have that information, you can trace where the problems are within the system, whether it's Edmonton or Valcartier or Halifax or Bagotville. It provides a certain amount of accountability within the system, and you can fix the errors that way.
If you just say “Yes, we have a problem, and we're trying to fix it”, that doesn't help. It doesn't get to the root of the problem, it seems to me. So is that something you could look at, under the circumstances?
BGen Pierre Boutet: That's what I intend to do. As I said, this is a problem that was new to me, when it was brought to my attention that there have been cases pending for more than six months and in some cases almost a year before they even get the documents. So I asked the question why. I still don't have the answer, so I cannot give you an answer, because I am in pursuit of answers to this. I want to discover if it is the system or if it's the individual at that location who sits on files. I don't know. But I do know it's a problem that is in existence.
Mr. David Pratt: So at some point in the not-too-distant future, then, we can expect to be able to know what percentage of cases have had lost files?
BGen Pierre Boutet: I would think so. I'm questioning that at this moment.
Mr. David Pratt: One of the other things that we heard often, from speaking to people who have had problems, is that there's a need for a single point of contact in the system—that Canadian Forces members have had to run from pillar to post trying to find the right person to deal with. Often they and their families are not in any emotional state to try to do the legwork on some of these things.
What are you doing, from that standpoint, to try to make the system as user-friendly as possible, from the perspective of the person who is receiving the service? Ultimately, they're the only ones who really matter in this whole process.
BGen Pierre Boutet: This is part of the follow-up work on the McLellan report. This is one of the recommendations—that there be one point of contact, and at that particular location there should be representatives not only of DND and the Canadian Forces but from VAC as well. It has to be a unified approach on base.
Another of the recommendations is that both organizations should be more proactive—not wait for people to come to them and then wake up, but that whenever you are informed that there's been an incident somewhere and somebody may have been injured, you go out and seek the information and try to provide the information and have one stop they can go to. From there, that organization goes and seeks the information, rather than have all the people walking around. That's one of the recommendations. I can't tell you how it will be implemented, but this is part of phase two in the follow-up to the McLellan report.
• 1645
Mr. David Pratt: I have one final question, Mr. Chair.
We received some pretty emotional testimony last Thursday from a number of Canadian Forces members. As I recall, their names were Riordon, Innes, Saueracker, and Hurley. Would you be in a position, again in the not-too-distant future, to be able to provide us with updates on what was happening with those particular cases?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: We have our difficulty, from the viewpoint of Veterans Affairs, in that each case is treated as a personal and confidential relationship between the individual and the department, and we protect that confidentiality with great effort.
I think on a general basis there might be some capacity between National Defence and Veterans Affairs to speak about improvements made on generally some of the more severe cases, but I don't know that we can be specific, in light of confidentiality of individuals.
If I might, I would like to pick up on two or three other comments you had made earlier.
In fact, as I was indicating in my remarks, we do work on military bases now, briefing the administration personnel as to what we'd like to have them keep on file, what kind of information we would like to have brought forward to us in the event there's a request for a pension claim or information from the Department of Veterans Affairs from National Defence.
I mentioned earlier, as well, that in fact we did brief military surgeons about the kind of information that also would be helpful.
I had the good luck to spend a weekend at Camp Gagetown last October with the 5 Brigade and 22 Regiment. One of the discoveries there is that a member of the armed forces on field exercises might incur an injury, and a doctor at that time would perform an examination and make a record. The pace at which it gets back into the central file in say Ottawa, as well as into the base file where the individual normally serves, is probably an issue, and it's in that kind of area that we're jointly looking at improvement.
One other item I'd mention is we've agreed to assign one of our senior officers to work in National Defence in an information cell, I think is the description. It would be our hope that we can work on better ways of getting information and receiving general calls as well.
Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, as a final comment, in connection with those cases I mentioned, perhaps what the committee could do would be to undertake to get release slips on the confidentiality issue so that we could get a report in camera on those particular cases.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Wayne.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I've been working on a case in which a veteran of World War II lost all of his records in a fire at home. He has his regiment number and his social insurance number, and so on. He was taken into the forces with the highest possible ranking for his abilities, his health was perfect, and so on. DVA has told him that he was discharged with a very low ranking.
He has requested his files and was sent letters and verbal confirmation of what was in the files, but he has never been given a copy of his files. I wonder if you could tell me why they would not give him a copy of his files.
Mr. Bernard Butler: Perhaps I might speak to that. Obviously I'm not familiar with the case to which you refer. I must say, in the normal course, if an individual asks for copies of the records he has, he really should be entitled to them. Unless there's something unique or peculiar about the case, I'm not sure I can answer the question.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Before I leave, I'm going to get you the name, and so on. I won't give it here because it's private.
• 1650
This same gentlemen since then has had to have both knees
replaced. He was reviewed by two doctors who offered
to see any doctors the DVA would recommend so they
could talk to him, and he was denied a pension based on
his discharge ranking. That's what he was told.
So I will give that to you. I will ask you to look into that. It is personal, but I will give it to you, because we've tried everything for this gentlemen, and still his files were denied him. I have major concerns when that happens, when something falls through the ranks. So I will give you his name and everything.
There's just one other thing. Before this last election, 21 cases were given to the chairman of the previous committee, if you'll recall, by the Merchant Navy. Those 21 cases, as I said before, according to what I hear from Muriel MacDonald, who is the secretary for the Merchant Navy Coalition, were never dealt with.
I have great respect for you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask if our secretary could perhaps get them for you so they could be turned over for them to look at, okay? Thank you.
The Chairman: Okay.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
I have some questions on the staff moving from DND to Veterans Affairs. Does that happen very often? Are there quite a few staff currently working at DVA who came from DND—who either were members of the forces or worked in the department somewhere?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Perhaps I could respond for my branch first, which is veterans services. It delivers services to all of our clients across Canada.
We have many National Defence personnel, but by no means equal to what would have been the case after the war. We do have many former regular force members working with us. I could not give you an exact number. I could give you some very good examples, though. Most recently, Dr. Ruth MacKenzie has joined us. She's a National Defence medical establishment expert in post-traumatic stress disorder.
The idea of exchanging staff, too, is also quite new, Brigadier-General Boutet being an example. We do intend to pursue that as well, and equally to have our staff working with National Defence. But National Defence is outside the hiring program for the Government of Canada, as you may be aware. No longer is the khaki parachute available, so recruitment is not as it would have been in past years.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Did General Boutet leave?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Yes, he did.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I had some questions for him. He now works for Veterans Affairs. He's come from the forces. He's there as a liaison?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: He's on secondment. We have an agreement with the Department of National Defence. General Boutet is assigned to work with us for three years. We are going to use his skills in the course of our work back and forth pursuing the McLellan report findings and generally to work towards service improvement between National Defence and Veterans Affairs to Canadian Forces members.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So he is getting paid by DND then.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: That is correct.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I can see that this liaison position could be extremely useful; people who have seen it from the forces side are now dealing with people who are moving from there into a situation where they need some help from Veterans Affairs.
But there's another side to this, and this is why I was trying to get an idea of how many staff, particularly senior military officers, have moved to the department. Because the other thing that could happen of course.... Probably most senior officers have had a bit of conflict with lower-ranking members in the forces. I'm just wondering what protection is set up in DVA to prevent these conflicts from carrying over to the job at Veterans Affairs.
• 1655
I think you'll
probably find that any senior officer has had
lower-ranking members where there's been a
struggle—probably a pretty serious struggle,
sometimes. I'm concerned that some of these people who
are still in the forces could be targeted if the
protection isn't in the system.
This is what I'm asking about—whether protection is
there, by their former officers. Is there some kind of
protection built into the system to ensure that can't
happen?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: In the case of our current secondment, that is an agreement between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We're very careful in the terms of the agreement with respect to work to be carried out.
As to individuals working for us, we recruit them on the basis of the skills they have, and their ranks vary from having been privates to colonels. One of my directors general was a corporal, and she has ex-colonels working for her. I think we are quite careful about being democratic and also applying the rules of the civil service of the Government of Canada. I don't think we have had a problem on that side.
Mr. Leon Benoit: There's nothing in place per se to protect against that. You're saying that because the hiring is done carefully....
Mr. Dennis Wallace: That is correct. We're very, very careful.
Mr. Leon Benoit: If someone is applying to Veterans Affairs for a pension of some kind, would they necessarily know who's handling their cases right from the start?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: They can. I would ask Bernard, then, perhaps—
Mr. Leon Benoit: They wouldn't necessarily?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Mr. Chambers might want to comment. They would know the pension officer with whom they would work in the district. They may find themselves speaking to the adjudicator, potentially, who's handling their case. It has occurred. If they're represented at an appeal, they would certainly know the Bureau of Pensions Advocates lawyer working with them.
Perhaps I should stop there and turn to Mr. Chambers and Mr. Butler.
Mr. Brian Chambers: From the point of view of a tribunal, our appointees, as you know, are appointed by the government of the day. We have a very good and rigorous understanding as to the kinds of profiles of people, and they're published in the Canada Gazette—I guess we'd call it a job description as to what's required.
We put quite a lot of emphasis on gender parity and on assuring that we provide service in both official languages so we have the right number of people. We deploy members throughout the country, so we have to have a balance between people who are prepared to serve in western Canada as well as in the central and the eastern parts of the country.
With respect to any kind of preference in terms of members, what we tell the Prime Minister's Office on a regular basis is that boards like ours work best where there's a wide variance in terms of backgrounds, culture, training, professionalism and so on, because those different points of view are ones that make for a good adjudicative mix. That's what we encourage, and over the last two years the appointments to the board have reflected those kinds of requests that we've made. We've had some very excellent appointments made.
Mr. Leon Benoit: If a board member knew someone whose case came before the panel, would they step down from that particular panel?
Mr. Brian Chambers: We use the legal term—they're asked to refuse themselves or to step down where they would know someone and there would be either a perception of actual bias or apprehension of bias in any form. In fact we had a recent case where that occurred, and all three members stepped down, and we've now had to reschedule that hearing.
Those are exceptions. Generally we know by screening in the system that a certain individual our members may know may be coming through, so we simply try to do the blind test. We try to make sure that if it was you and there were two or three colleagues who might be serving on the board who knew you in a former life, we'd just exempt them from the beginning, and panel a board that was highly unlikely to have ever known you in the past.
• 1700
So yes, we take those steps to screen.
Mr. Leon Benoit: What about before that point, though, when this case first comes in? That was my original question. Is there some protection in place there, in case there is a vendetta that is somehow carried over from a relationship in a previous life in the military?
Mr. Brian Chambers: From the board's perspective, if we were to be aware of that, there are two approaches. We do our own screening to make sure that doesn't occur. It's part of a very extensive training process where we tell the member, if there's any apprehension at all that there may be a conflict....
The other point is, if after the hearing the person is dissatisfied, one of the grounds on which they can ask that the decision be reviewed is a breach of what we call “principles of natural justice”, that they haven't had a full and fair hearing because there was an apprehension of bias, because the decision-maker himself or herself could be perceived as having a bias.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Maybe I don't understand the process, but cases don't immediately go to a panel.
Mr. Brian Chambers: No.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I was asking about before they get to a panel.
Mr. Bernard Butler: Sure. To explain that quickly, Mr. Benoit, you are quite right; when the individual first makes application for a disability pension, that application is adjudicated upon by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
We have thirty-odd adjudicators in Charlottetown. As part of their training, they receive training not only on the medical side of things, but equally on the administrative law side of things.
Mr. Chambers was just referring to the principles of natural justice. One of those things is the issue of procedural fairness. Bias is an element of that, and all adjudicators are trained to identify where actual or perceived bias may appear.
If an adjudicator sees on their desk an application from somebody they know, they are asked to flag that and hand it back through their supervisor to somebody else. So we encourage complete objectivity in that adjudication process.
When the decision is rendered, we go to great lengths to ensure the decision contains sufficient information within the document itself to allow the applicant to know what information was considered, what evidence was factored in, what the reasons for that adjudication are or were, and that adjudication is signed by the adjudicator.
When the applicant receives that decision, they can readily determine if it's somebody they knew, and if they feel that there is a problem, it's up front and they could at that point in time either come back to us and express that concern or take that decision and proceed on to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. So we do have safeguards built into the process.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Does this happen from time to time? Has it happened that a person who has been adjudicated on has thought, in regard to the person who handled the case, there might be a bias there?
Mr. Bernard Butler: Whether or not it has happened, I can't say. What I can say is, to my personal knowledge, it has certainly never happened since I have been on the scene. I have not had an objection raised in that regard at all. It may well be due to the emphasis we place on these basis concepts of procedural fairness in adjudication and the importance we attach to giving a good, objective ruling in all these cases.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Mr. Benoit, I should make my remarks more precise, as well.
In regard to your question earlier, more often than not the first point of contact with an individual who applies for a pension would be at a district office, with a pension officer. It could be another employee of the department.
That relationship is one of information-gathering, and we hope the relationship is a very good one, because it often helps in the process of eliciting information that improves the case and otherwise better provides information. In that sense, at the information-gathering, it's not adjudicative; it's one of establishing the basis upon which one can proceed. I think a good, solid relationship is important, businesslike but also friendly, and then it moves forward to adjudication.
• 1705
Mr. Leon Benoit: And if there were some reason that the person who's applying to Veterans Affairs feels they're just having a hard time working with that particular person, can they request that someone else handle the case?
Mr. Dennis Wallace: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: And their request will be granted.
Mr. Dennis Wallace: I would expect reasonably, yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.
There being no more questions, we'll finish with this session. I just want to thank the witnesses for coming in. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.